memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:D'deridex class
FA status Nomination * Self nomination (mostly). I think I've researched and added to this article as much as can be possibly added. I think it is well organized and well represented with appropriate images and background information. --Alan del Beccio 04:25, 30 Jul 2005 (UTC) * Support. Great work Gv`, as always. I particularly like the now-included rooms, although I wish the series kept a little continuity with bridges. - AJHalliwell 08:48, 30 Jul 2005 (UTC) * Support. This is a areally nicely written article. To me it's comparable to those on the best-written Federation starship classes. One little comment though. Was the first episode where the name "D'deridex" was first quoted (by Data)? That could be of some use in the background information.--Scimitar 10:16, 30 Jul 2005 (UTC) * Support, very nice. Jaf 17:02, 31 Jul 2005 (UTC)Jaf * Support I just fixed the list of appearances. Now everything about this article seems accurate, detailed, and complete. Tobyk777 05:34, 1 Aug 2005 (UTC) ** There was nothing wrong with the list of appearance. They are supposed to be listed in order of appearance. --Alan del Beccio 05:42, 1 Aug 2005 (UTC) * Support. Alex Peckover 18:18, 5 Aug 2005 (UTC) ** Featured --Alan del Beccio 05:35, 6 Aug 2005 (UTC) Reconfirmation *Needs a blurb, but otherwise I think this still fits the criteria of a FA; comprehensive and well written. 31dot (talk) 15:41, September 9, 2012 (UTC) *While I'm wondering if some tightening up of some of the "micro paragraphs" in the Interiors section is required, I otherwise Agree with 31dots assessment--Sennim (talk) 11:09, September 10, 2012 (UTC) :A good read, but still suffers from some inconsistent use of past/present tense in in-universe text. --Defiant (talk) 10:25, September 18, 2012 (UTC) :There are also a few bits that make very little sense to me and could do with some clarification, such as the use of "the following month" at the start of the text about the studio models, when no previous month has been clearly stated. Similarly, if there were 2 studio models created, wouldn't it be better to write the text from that perspective to make it clearer? For example, the first sentence says how Jein crafted "the studio model" (singular). Well, did he craft both studio models or just the first? --Defiant (talk) 11:51, September 18, 2012 (UTC) :Thanks to Sennim's work on the page, I'm now more-or-less entirely happy with the bg info. The mix-up of past and present tenses in the in-universe wordings could still be tidied, though, which I'll endeavour to do. --Defiant (talk) 14:20, September 18, 2012 (UTC) :I'm now happy with the tenses, but would like to echo Sennim's assessment that some of the tiny paragraphs could maybe be tightened up. Also, I'm wondering about the "additional reading" link to Star Trek: Starship Spotter. If that book contains anything useful that could be added, it should be. Otherwise, deletion of the link would seem to be in order. --Defiant (talk) 15:14, September 18, 2012 (UTC) ::Especially since it is not considered canon;)--Sennim (talk) 15:26, September 18, 2012 (UTC) :Well, neither is the apocrypha stuff, so it doesn't mean it's a completely useless source, generally! I'm just wondering what relevance it has in this case; what info it has on the D'deridex-class. --Defiant (talk) 18:49, September 18, 2012 (UTC) ::Well, I've checked my copy, it only has some general writing in a style akin to that of the Fact Files, that in essence is largely covered in the main body of text. It's technical specifications sheet, where coinciding, is the same as the Manual, but more extensive (and thus speculative)...I'm bit unsure what the status of the Spotter is. The pics are valid BG-info as they were constructed by bonafide production staffers from the actual CG-models; but the writers are no staffers...I'm leaning toward considering them as "fan" writers of tech stuff and as such I'm agreeing with your assessment that the book reference is superfluous..--Sennim (talk) 19:21, September 18, 2012 (UTC) *'Support'. I think it is a featured article. Well written and enough images to illustrate the article. Tom (talk) 19:49, October 7, 2012 (UTC) Denominate Though there are three votes in favor, including mine, according to current guidelines, this is not enough to maintain this article's FA-status...So, as this (re-)nomination has been up for 4 months (way, way, incredibly way beyond the alloted time), an admin should by now follow up and de-feature this one...-( May I notice that this procedure has gone down the drain, big time...----Sennim (talk) 02:21, December 22, 2012 (UTC) :I have some thoughts about this whole process, but I will save them for later and a more appropriate location. 31dot (talk) 02:29, December 22, 2012 (UTC) Lemme know, Duke's original intent was good, but it does not seem to work, unfortunately...----Sennim (talk) 02:33, December 22, 2012 (UTC) ::Fun fact, since it seems that there are no opposing votes, this passed months ago. You only need five if someone opposed the reconfirmation. Since this was never closed though, the reconfirmation could still be considered open, for dating purposes. - 05:57, December 22, 2012 (UTC) ::Archiving. - 22:47, August 13, 2013 (UTC) Illusionary Warbird Should we include in the unnamed Warbird Section the Illusionary Warbird created by Nagillum in . The reason I thought why it should be is because there's an article on the which is Illusionary and unlikely to actually exist, so why not the Nagillum Wabird :It should probably go on the Unnamed D'deridex class starships page, since AFAIK it didn't have a name. 31dot (talk) 15:12, January 31, 2013 (UTC) That's what I meant. ::It is noted in Illusory starships. --Pseudohuman (talk) 22:42, February 8, 2013 (UTC) :It's probably better suited for that page, not the one I suggested. 31dot (talk) 22:52, February 8, 2013 (UTC) D'daridex Class Cruiser I was watching "Tin Man" today, and I noticed that the spelling for this class name was different. I checked the script - the close captioning matches the script. The class name is D'daridex. resources/scripts/168.txt}} Throwback (talk) 14:55, May 28, 2013 (UTC) :CC spelling doesn't matter, because it is sometimes done by people not otherwise involved with the production. Script spelling does matter, though. We should check if (a) some spelling has actually been seen on-screen, or if that hasn't been the case, if (b) the other spelling has been used in a script as well. If neither, we might need to move the article. --Cid Highwind (talk) 16:29, May 28, 2013 (UTC) ::Then the question becomes where did this spelling come from, because virtually all other sources out there use it(Encyclopedia, Tech manuals, novels, etc.). None of which are canon/accepted resources, I know, but I'm assuming all these varied sources didn't just make it up. 31dot (talk) 17:28, May 28, 2013 (UTC) :Perhaps the Encyclopedia spelled it that way, and everyone (including us) followed. I have to admit, I really hope that we find the spelling we currently use somewhere, so that we don't have to move the article - but if we don't, the fact that everyone else uses a spelling with unknown origin should not stop us from using one that can be cited. -- Cid Highwind (talk) 17:46, May 28, 2013 (UTC) ::Ultimately, I agree, though I also agree that it would be nice to find this one somewhere. :) 31dot (talk) 17:57, May 28, 2013 (UTC) I did provide a link to the script, which shows the variant spelling. Here is the link again - resources/scripts/168.txt}}. The image from identifies this class as Romulan warbird.Throwback (talk) 18:02, May 28, 2013 (UTC) :With "other spelling", I was referring to the one with 'e'. If we find that spelling in another script, or even with a better source (like an LCARS display), we should keep the article where it currently is. --Cid Highwind (talk) 18:27, May 28, 2013 (UTC) The class name was mentioned only in . And, when there was a database image of it in the , it was identified as a Romulan Warbird, and, in Daniels' database, the class, seen from above, wasn't identified by name.Throwback (talk) 18:43, May 28, 2013 (UTC) :::If we don't have a canonical spelling and two different bg-spellings, we should probably rename to "Romulan Warbird (2360s)". Since all displays seem to identify this craft simply as Romulan Warbird like "Drone" and "The Defector". --Pseudohuman (talk) 23:02, May 28, 2013 (UTC) ::That does make sense, but if the class name was used in "Tin Man", then the script spelling is valid. 31dot (talk) 23:36, May 28, 2013 (UTC) There is no "if" 31dot. The class name is mentioned in "Tin Man". I watched the episode this day, which lead me to check the script and write about this issue.Throwback (talk) 00:11, May 29, 2013 (UTC) :::I agree that it is a valid canonical name, but the other spelling with "e" is found in the TNG writers guide for example, so that to me says that the spelling "a" in the script is more likely a simple typo. Since we cannot know for certain which is correct, I only suggest we don't use either one in the article name. I am not saying the class name is not canon. --Pseudohuman (talk) 00:28, May 29, 2013 (UTC) ::I didn't mean "if" as in I was questioning the validity of the claim, only that if it is true (and it is) then it is valid. 31dot (talk) 00:38, May 29, 2013 (UTC) What is the date of that writer's guide? Was it before or after "Tin Man"? Throwback (talk) 01:02, May 29, 2013 (UTC) :::After. I was referring to the Star Trek: The Next Generation Writers' Technical Manual Fourth Season Edition, that uses the spelling "D'Deridex". --Pseudohuman (talk) 07:24, May 29, 2013 (UTC)